How many of you JDs do not work anymore because it is not worth it financially?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with the brilliant suggestion to just go get a government job. That market has become extremely competitive as well. OP has zero relevant experience - she's not going to be able to just waltz into the SEC, CFTC, etc. and gets some great experience to then lateral over to Big Law.

She should have taken a leave of absence from law school when she had her son. She could not have possibly had him at a worse time in her career.

totally agree. OP, why do you think the rest of us are having kids in our mid to late 30's?

-1 Totally out of line. OP was asking for job advice, not your judgment on her life choices. I know several (yes, several!) women who had children during law school. At least 1 was still able to get a biglaw job. Do you read DCUM? Do you see how many women struggle with infertility and problems associated with waiting to have kids, not to mention interrupting your career during your peak working years.

I was referring to the fact that people here make painful choices and yes risk infertility to try to balance everything and she just thinks it should come easy. She wants her cake and eat it too. I gave her job advice earlier. She needs to stop being so immature. I don't have to read DCUM to understand the choices females attorneys make because I am one. Piss off and don't project your own issues onto this.

Who is projecting their issues other than your lovely self[selves]? How would you feel if you were talking about your problems conceiving and someone told you "Why didn't you just have kids during law school or when you were younger?" That person would seem like a total bitch, that's all. Yes, pp seems unrealistic, but she is obviously not telling us every line of her resume or the whole story here. If you and the other pps don't have something decent to say, perhaps you don't need to contribute!

The answer is: YOU are projecting their issues onto this post and I actually offered some insight for the OP (ex: even a small agency is competitive). You are the only one going into hysterics. Therapy might help you (honestly).

P.S. why would it be "selves"??? I made a comment. You went into hysterics and I offered an explanation.

It's not really possible for me to be projecting, because I'm lucky and I never had to pay for childcare or have that issue. I was addressing both you and the other incredibly nasty, judgmental pps who apparently think everyone should wait 20 years to have children or something. You seem terribly bitter for whatever reason, that's not my problem. Don't write nasty comments on the internet and then get so infuriated when someone calls you out on it.

Who is infuriated other than you? How do I seem bitter? People make choices and she is unwilling to make any at all. I am sure you think you called me out on something but you really did not. (Where was the calling out?) I don't think anyone waits 20 years to have kids either. You did project with your whole "how would you feel if"/ You just seemed to go off on your own personal tangent.

Oh, wait. You think I was "infuriated" because I said "piss off"??? Really?

For a lawyer, you do not seem capable of keeping your cool (piss off indeed). And yeah, your tone is that of someone who is rather upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re simply not going to find many JDs who don’t work because they financially can’t -- i.e. the cost of childcare > income. Even my friends at non profits who complain about not being paid well can afford daycare and nanny shares and still come out on top with their salaries. You will find a good number of JDs mostly women who don’t work due to a life choice. Often it’s because DH makes enough money that the hassle and stress of everything - commuting, dealing with difficult partners etc. is just not worth the toll it takes on the family. Sometimes it’s because DH is doing ok but has chances to make some promotions which won’t happen if he is constantly leaving early to do pick-ups, taking days off for kids being sick etc. so the couple decides it’s better to put the eggs in the basket of DH making that promotion and the wife doing everything at home.

If you can let go of the “biglaw or bust” mentality, you should reach out to every solo practitioner in your area. I definitely know people who have started a practice and ended up slammed and often they want to hire a junior atty to research/write for them but can’t afford to hire someone for 40 hrs/wk with benefits. They would be willing to hire for 20 hrs/wk or on a project by project basis at an hourly rate, which may work for you. You’re in a good position to be able to do what you “want” to do since you don’t need to make a certain amount of money (assuming your DH is willing to support childcare). That should allow you flexibility to get experience in ways that others can’t. You’ve already seen on this thread how unforgiving law is to people who are experienced but took a break. I would encourage you to get something, anything on your resume -- because law is even more unforgiving to people who didn’t establish a resume right after graduation and it will only get harder as time goes on.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to thank the tax rate posters for a very entertaining thread and I think we can all agree one side is dumb as rocks and/or doesn't understand the tax system!

You are more than welcome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Who is infuriated other than you? How do I seem bitter? People make choices and she is unwilling to make any at all. I am sure you think you called me out on something but you really did not. (Where was the calling out?) I don't think anyone waits 20 years to have kids either. You did project with your whole "how would you feel if"/ You just seemed to go off on your own personal tangent.

Oh, wait. You think I was "infuriated" because I said "piss off"??? Really?

For a lawyer, you do not seem capable of keeping your cool (piss off indeed). And yeah, your tone is that of someone who is rather upset.

Ha! I am not upset at all actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just so perplexed by the title of this post. Why would there be a huge number of lawyers who don't work because it's not worth it financially? If anything the salaries will outweigh child care, although again, this is not a concern of yours since your husband makes big money.

Why don't govt jobs "interest" you but big law does?? Many of those jobs are pretty dull (doc review anyone?)

You are clearly not a lawyer. To answer the question of the title of this thread: how many JDs do not work anymore because it isn't worth it financially? Answer: tons of us.

This thread has been dealing with much more that the title question because the OP gave more specific information in her post. But, as a SAHM with a JD and two kids that would need full time childcare, believe me, there are lots of us that have weighed the costs and benefits of working as a lawyer and decided it was better to stay home (financially and QOL).

Hilarious. I am a lawyer and married to a lawyer. Why is the cost of child care only charged against the woman's salary?

That's what I have been wondering too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just so perplexed by the title of this post. Why would there be a huge number of lawyers who don't work because it's not worth it financially? If anything the salaries will outweigh child care, although again, this is not a concern of yours since your husband makes big money.

Why don't govt jobs "interest" you but big law does?? Many of those jobs are pretty dull (doc review anyone?)

You are clearly not a lawyer. To answer the question of the title of this thread: how many JDs do not work anymore because it isn't worth it financially? Answer: tons of us.

This thread has been dealing with much more that the title question because the OP gave more specific information in her post. But, as a SAHM with a JD and two kids that would need full time childcare, believe me, there are lots of us that have weighed the costs and benefits of working as a lawyer and decided it was better to stay home (financially and QOL).

Hilarious. I am a lawyer and married to a lawyer. Why is the cost of child care only charged against the woman's salary?

That's what I have been wondering too.

he makes $500K, he is not going to quit his job. if her income barely covers childcare, then that makes for a long look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is infuriated other than you? How do I seem bitter? People make choices and she is unwilling to make any at all. I am sure you think you called me out on something but you really did not. (Where was the calling out?) I don't think anyone waits 20 years to have kids either. You did project with your whole "how would you feel if"/ You just seemed to go off on your own personal tangent.

Oh, wait. You think I was "infuriated" because I said "piss off"??? Really?

For a lawyer, you do not seem capable of keeping your cool (piss off indeed). And yeah, your tone is that of someone who is rather upset.

Ha! I am not upset at all actually.

If I had a cookie I would give it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is infuriated other than you? How do I seem bitter? People make choices and she is unwilling to make any at all. I am sure you think you called me out on something but you really did not. (Where was the calling out?) I don't think anyone waits 20 years to have kids either. You did project with your whole "how would you feel if"/ You just seemed to go off on your own personal tangent.

Oh, wait. You think I was "infuriated" because I said "piss off"??? Really?

For a lawyer, you do not seem capable of keeping your cool (piss off indeed). And yeah, your tone is that of someone who is rather upset.

Ha! I am not upset at all actually.

If I had a cookie I would give it to you.
???


Oh, ok.

[Anonymous]

OP, you WILL NOT find a BigLaw job now or after taking a couple of years off. Nor will you find the kind of clerkship (federal, preferably appellate) that you can use to springboard into BigLaw.

The only viable route I have seen suggested is going by way of the government, but those jobs are extremely hard to get. The PPs who talk about how hard it is are right. I work at a firm with a "big name," and our people do go to the governemnt after a few years in decent slots, but not straight out of a school. It is virtually impossible to get a job at an agency that might lead to a BigLaw job striaght out of school.

Even the people I know who took time off witht heir kids and then eventually found a gig with a non-profit did so only after having YEARS of experience in the given field first.

I think your job prospects are pretty bleak in general, honestly. If you did not figure out how to get where you say you want to go by the end of your first year of law school, I have to say you brought this on yourself.

And to answer the title of your post's question, DH and I are both lawyers. I make what your DH makes, which is bit more than my DH makes, but he is above the DCUM "middle class" line all by himself. So, no, it isn't worth it financially for either of us to stay home. I do see my kids. If you want something bad enough, you figure out how to juggle without dropping a baby, a deadline, or the family dog's prescription refill. It requires a level of commitment in you, and a level of commitment and partnership with your spouse, that you do not seem to have.

[Anonymous]

Marriage bonus? Hahahahahaha. I earn 225k. DH earns 60-75k. If we were not married, we would pay less in taxes. Because we are married, I pay the same rate I would have as a single, but he pays a much higher rate. We know this is true bc our accountant explains it to us. The idea that couples like us get a marriage bonus is ludicrous. Because of OP's husband's high income, she will lose a very high percentage of her salary to taxes. Same thing happens to my DH. And FWIW, any assumption that we qualify for lots of deductions is crap - many deductions phase out at higher incomes, and we are employees, so no write-offs or cap gains for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you WILL NOT find a BigLaw job now or after taking a couple of years off. Nor will you find the kind of clerkship (federal, preferably appellate) that you can use to springboard into BigLaw.

The only viable route I have seen suggested is going by way of the government, but those jobs are extremely hard to get. The PPs who talk about how hard it is are right. I work at a firm with a "big name," and our people do go to the governemnt after a few years in decent slots, but not straight out of a school. It is virtually impossible to get a job at an agency that might lead to a BigLaw job striaght out of school.

Even the people I know who took time off witht heir kids and then eventually found a gig with a non-profit did so only after having YEARS of experience in the given field first.

I think your job prospects are pretty bleak in general, honestly. If you did not figure out how to get where you say you want to go by the end of your first year of law school, I have to say you brought this on yourself.

And to answer the title of your post's question, DH and I are both lawyers. I make what your DH makes, which is bit more than my DH makes, but he is above the DCUM "middle class" line all by himself. So, no, it isn't worth it financially for either of us to stay home. I do see my kids. If you want something bad enough, you figure out how to juggle without dropping a baby, a deadline, or the family dog's prescription refill. It requires a level of commitment in you, and a level of commitment and partnership with your spouse, that you do not seem to have.

wow I feel sorry for your husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just so perplexed by the title of this post. Why would there be a huge number of lawyers who don't work because it's not worth it financially? If anything the salaries will outweigh child care, although again, this is not a concern of yours since your husband makes big money.

Why don't govt jobs "interest" you but big law does?? Many of those jobs are pretty dull (doc review anyone?)

You are clearly not a lawyer. To answer the question of the title of this thread: how many JDs do not work anymore because it isn't worth it financially? Answer: tons of us.

This thread has been dealing with much more that the title question because the OP gave more specific information in her post. But, as a SAHM with a JD and two kids that would need full time childcare, believe me, there are lots of us that have weighed the costs and benefits of working as a lawyer and decided it was better to stay home (financially and QOL).

Hilarious. I am a lawyer and married to a lawyer. Why is the cost of child care only charged against the woman's salary?

That's what I have been wondering too.

he makes $500K, he is not going to quit his job. if her income barely covers childcare, then that makes for a long look in the mirror.

If he makes $500k then cost of childcare is a non-issue.

Truly, I do not understand this. I am one of the PP lawyers married to another lawyer. It has never occurred to either of us to "charge" child care to my salary. The cost of child care is just the cost of doing business. Do I think about SAHM-- maybe-- but it's NEVER because of the cost of child care! And it certainly wouldn't be if DH made $500k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think so. She's already in the top income bracket because of DH's income, so all of her income is taxed at the top rate of 35% for federal, plus 8.5% if she lives in DC, plus 7.65 percent payroll taxes, which equals just over 50%.

.

No, no, no, no, no! I am consistently amazed at how ignorant people are of MARGINAL TAX RATES. The 35% top bracket only applies to a portion of the family's income. Everyone's first $10,000 is taxed at the same rate. If you are in the 35% bracket, you do NOT pay 35% of your total income in federal income taxes. My family is in the 25% bracket but our effective rate is much lower, maybe 15% once you count all of our deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Here is a quick explanation of how marginal tax rates work: http://www.moolanomy.com/1800/how-do-marginal-tax-rate-and-effective-tax-rate-work/

Huh? Who doesn't understand marginal tax rates? When OP earns $ she doesn't get to use the lower brackets unless she divorces DH$$$ first.

No you are about as dumb as rocks. Let's explain this in your idiot talk so many you will get it. Everyone 'uses' the lower tax bracket for the first part of their income. What you make beyond that gets taxed at the higher rate. So for example everyone's first 50000 or whatever gets. Taxed at a certain rate. Once you make over the max for that rate you get taxed more on the extra amount. Sorry I had to explain this like a third grader but you sound dumb. Oh. And in answer to your rhetorical question: you don't understand the marginal tax rate!!!!

and you don't understand the marriage penalty. if your husband makes $150K, then yes, all of your income is taxed at the higher rate.

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)] •10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400, plus
•15% on taxable income over $17,400 to $70,700, plus
•25% on taxable income over $70,700 to $142,700, plus
•28% on taxable income over $142,700 to $217,450, plus
•33% on taxable income over $217,450 to $388,350, plus
•35% on taxable income over $388,350.


If you are married, your first 70,000 is taxed at 15% from 70,000 to 142,000 you get taxed 25% on that portion. From 142,000 to 150,000 you get taxed at 28%. You would not get taxed the whole 35% or 28% or whatever on every dollar from 0-150,0000. You still don't get it do you?

If you are married FiLING JOINTLY all your income plus spouse's is taxed in one pile. Spouse #2 doesn't get to go back to 15% if Spouse #1 is already making $500K.

You could file SEPARATELY and get the lower rate, but then Spouse with big$ would also have to file separately and would pay more.

No, I'm not an attorney, and not the immediate PP either. If you are an attorney you should be disbarred.

I'm not a tax attorney but was answering the queston regarding marginal tax rates. Disbarred? Pray tell for what? You don't pay the higher rate on ALL of the income. It is not going back. It's not complicated. It really really is not a complicated concept. When ALL your income gets taxed, only the income over 388,350 gets taxed at the higher rate. The difficulty people are having with this is mind boggling.

wow. you may be the dumbest poster here yet, which is saying something. husband makes $500K, so presumably his tax rate is at 35% for dollar # 500,000. with me so far? So if the wife works, her dollar #1 is taxed at 35%. Same with her dollars #2 through 50,000. So YES, all of her dollars earned are taxed at 35% because of her husband's high income. Now the deductions go up for married couples, but I am sure they itemize so mostly a moot point. That is how the marriage penalty works - her first dollar is taxed at the highest rate because of her spouse.

If she fills out her w2 as single her own check would be taxed as a single person. If she makes 500000 she would get taxed at lower level and his 550k that gets tacked on to her money gets tacks on to that. What they will pay at the end of the year in taxes as a couple would be the same but why would that need to come out of her salary and not his. If at work she is getting taxed at the lower rate and all the childcare is paid by him and not her, then I don' see why her 'low' salary would prevent her from working are tack on her salary on to his to say she pays the highest rate from her first dollar but why wouldn't you do it the other way. In any event, what her effective rate would be when she files with her husband does not mean that her actual check would need to be reduced. They would just owe at the end of the year. Let him pay you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think so. She's already in the top income bracket because of DH's income, so all of her income is taxed at the top rate of 35% for federal, plus 8.5% if she lives in DC, plus 7.65 percent payroll taxes, which equals just over 50%.

.

No, no, no, no, no! I am consistently amazed at how ignorant people are of MARGINAL TAX RATES. The 35% top bracket only applies to a portion of the family's income. Everyone's first $10,000 is taxed at the same rate. If you are in the 35% bracket, you do NOT pay 35% of your total income in federal income taxes. My family is in the 25% bracket but our effective rate is much lower, maybe 15% once you count all of our deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Here is a quick explanation of how marginal tax rates work: http://www.moolanomy.com/1800/how-do-marginal-tax-rate-and-effective-tax-rate-work/

Huh? Who doesn't understand marginal tax rates? When OP earns $ she doesn't get to use the lower brackets unless she divorces DH$$$ first.

No you are about as dumb as rocks. Let's explain this in your idiot talk so many you will get it. Everyone 'uses' the lower tax bracket for the first part of their income. What you make beyond that gets taxed at the higher rate. So for example everyone's first 50000 or whatever gets. Taxed at a certain rate. Once you make over the max for that rate you get taxed more on the extra amount. Sorry I had to explain this like a third grader but you sound dumb. Oh. And in answer to your rhetorical question: you don't understand the marginal tax rate!!!!

and you don't understand the marriage penalty. if your husband makes $150K, then yes, all of your income is taxed at the higher rate.

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)] •10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400, plus
•15% on taxable income over $17,400 to $70,700, plus
•25% on taxable income over $70,700 to $142,700, plus
•28% on taxable income over $142,700 to $217,450, plus
•33% on taxable income over $217,450 to $388,350, plus
•35% on taxable income over $388,350.


If you are married, your first 70,000 is taxed at 15% from 70,000 to 142,000 you get taxed 25% on that portion. From 142,000 to 150,000 you get taxed at 28%. You would not get taxed the whole 35% or 28% or whatever on every dollar from 0-150,0000. You still don't get it do you?

If you are married FiLING JOINTLY all your income plus spouse's is taxed in one pile. Spouse #2 doesn't get to go back to 15% if Spouse #1 is already making $500K.

You could file SEPARATELY and get the lower rate, but then Spouse with big$ would also have to file separately and would pay more.

No, I'm not an attorney, and not the immediate PP either. If you are an attorney you should be disbarred.

I'm not a tax attorney but was answering the queston regarding marginal tax rates. Disbarred? Pray tell for what? You don't pay the higher rate on ALL of the income. It is not going back. It's not complicated. It really really is not a complicated concept. When ALL your income gets taxed, only the income over 388,350 gets taxed at the higher rate. The difficulty people are having with this is mind boggling.

wow. you may be the dumbest poster here yet, which is saying something. husband makes $500K, so presumably his tax rate is at 35% for dollar # 500,000. with me so far? So if the wife works, her dollar #1 is taxed at 35%. Same with her dollars #2 through 50,000. So YES, all of her dollars earned are taxed at 35% because of her husband's high income. Now the deductions go up for married couples, but I am sure they itemize so mostly a moot point. That is how the marriage penalty works - her first dollar is taxed at the highest rate because of her spouse.

If she fills out her w2 as single person, she would be taxed as a single person. That is what would be deducted each check even if that means will owe more at the end of the year. The check she receives from work would not be taxed at 35 percent. If she makes 50k she would get taxed at lower level and it would be his 550k that gets tacked on to her salary. What they will pay at the end of the year in taxes as a couple would be the same but why would that need to come out of her salary and not his. If at work she is getting taxed at the lower rate and all the childcare is paid by him and not her, then I don' see why her 'low' salary would prevent her from working. You are tacking on her salary on to his to say she pays the highest rate from her first dollar but why wouldn't you do it the other way. In any event, what her effective rate would be when she files with her husband does not mean that her actual check would need to reflect the 35 percent tax rate. They would just owe at the end of the year. Let him pay you that.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at this with a slightly longer-term perspective. OP, unless you really want to stay home, think about what you would like to be doing in five or ten years. If it would make you happier to have a career, wouldn't DH support your decision? It's family money, not just his, and child care is just as much his obligation as yours.

As for taxes. if you file jointly there's no reason to count your income as something separate from his. If he got a generous bonus, would you decline it because it would be taxed?

There are startup costs to anything.